Originally posted by BackFire
. . . Hopefully it doesn't use it's homosexually driven characters and theme as a gimmick for attention and actually does the story justice.But, from what I've heard, it does.
Originally posted by BackFire
Poor reading comprehension on your part.I never accused anyone of anything. I said "hopefully this doesn't happen, and from what I've heard, it doesn't".
Hmmmmmm. I note a discrepancy.
Funny how those not's can make all the difference.
Miscommunication corrected.
Originally posted by Mando
As far as I'm concerned homosexual movies are for the homosexual.
So I guess you're not going to see Memoirs of Geisha then, assuming you're not Asian, much less a Geshia. Or The New World, since you don't live in the 17th Century. Or Capote because you're not writing a book on a pair of killers. Or Syrianna because you're not Arab or in the oil industry. Or . . .
Doesn't sound like you'll be going to many of the big movies this year.
I have been going to films with straight protagonists all my life, but I never brushed them off as "straight movies" not to be bothered with.
If this were porn, I would totally see your point. But it's not.
And I can totally see you being a little wierded out by seeing two guys kiss. Maybe even a little revolted. I get that. I can symathize. But it's less than one minute of the two-plus hours that that happens. There are some really gross moments in a lot great movies--people brutally killed, etc.--and we get past the few parts that are hard to watch and still leave really happy that we went. Nobody really ENJOYED seeing that horse in the bed in The Godfather, and I'm sure plenty of old ladies refused to go specifically because they had heard about it, but most people were wise enough to just deal. It was worth a momentary gag.
That could well happen to you here. Yeah, you'll have a few moments of discomfort, but you will also experience a great work of art.
And could I suggest that the queasiness is largely because we, as a society, have hid it from ourselves all our lives. Yeah, I thought I was going to puke first time I saw two guys kiss too--back when I was trying really hard to be straight. Guys holding hands, made me really nervous. But I got over it pretty quickly and so did all my straight friends. They don't bat an eye now, just like I don't bat an eye seeing straight couples on the screen or walking down the street. Anything foreign is a jolt. So maybe one film or two and it won't be so foreign anymore and you won't spend the rest of your days cringing at the thought. Maybe.
(Meanwhile, I'm not usually so argumentative. It's just hard not to get a little touchy when the first mainstream film in 20-some years actually has a couple like me, and people write it off for having people like me in it. Funny how it's totally acceptable to say that, but if someone made a similar crack about black people or Jews or Mexicans or whatever, jaws would drop. Yeah, I'm not going to see Munich, Jew films are for the Jews. Yow. Still OK to say about gays, though. OK, I'll try not to be touchy. But it does sting.)
Originally posted by davecullen
So I guess you're not going to see Memoirs of Geisha then, assuming you're not Asian, much less a Geshia. Or The New World, since you don't live in the 17th Century. Or Capote because you're not writing a book on a pair of killers. Or Syrianna because you're not Arab or in the oil industry. Or . . .
Doesn't sound like you'll be going to many of the big movies this year.
I have been going to films with straight protagonists all my life, but I never brushed them off as "straight movies" not to be bothered with.
Well, It's not that I'm trying to stereotype these kinds of films. But I'm not exactly going to see this movie and say things like "you go boy!" or take any action whatsoever. I'm just not interested to say the least. Like I'm not interested for other films like things by uwe boll, or chick flicks. I'm not stereotyping, I'm jut saying They don't really fit with me. I'm not tring to offend.
Originally posted by davecullen
Hmmmmmm. I note a discrepancy.Funny how those not's can make all the difference.
Miscommunication corrected.
Perhaps I worded it badly.
When I said "From what I heard, it does" what I meant is that "from what I heard, it does do the story justice" not "It does use homosexuality as a gimmick.
Regaurdless, my point stands. Plenty of stupid artsy movies use homosexuality as a gimmick, as if it makes the film unique simply because it has a story centered around gay characters and gay relationships, all the while the movie is generic, pretentious crap using it's gay gimmick as a crutch. As South Park said "Gay cowboys eating pudding".
Whether or not this particular movie commits this type of flaw I'll decide for myself when I see the film.
Originally posted by BackFire
Plenty of stupid artsy movies use homosexuality as a gimmick, as if it makes the film unique simply because it has a story centered around gay characters and gay relationships, all the while the movie is generic, pretentious crap using it's gay gimmick as a crutch.
OK, clearly we misunderstood each other. That's cleared up, hopefully no hard feelings.
But on to your main point, restated above. I have to admit, that really threw me as well. I was completely baffled by it initially, and now that you've laid it out more explicitly, I'm still kind of unsure how to even respond. But I'm intrigued by this fundamental difference in perceptions. I've seen a fair number of gay films, mostly with gay people, and talk about film constantly, and this is the first I'm hearing of this idea. Which is not to discredit it, just to say it does seem to come up in my world.
But let me back up, and agree on one essential point, and maybe go even further: most gay films suck. That was a line I read in (Southern Voice? some gay pub) writing about Brokeback about a month ago. I linked to it on my blog and wrote a long response agreeing and trying to figure out why. I mean, more films fail than succeed to start with, but gay films seem to have a much worse batting average. They just tend to be awful.
Why, I'm not sure. I figured it was a combo of three things: low budgets available for niche product; most of the really talented people want to work on projects with some hope of a decent audience; and some quasi-militant gay filmmakers are always trying way too hard to push some kind of message or envelop, fooling themselves into believing a message or an agenda could take the place of good skills. It's got to be good art first, before it speaks to anyone, right? Hyped up artists of all stripes often forget that.
But this idea of using gayess as a gimmick. That, I don't get at all. I have a feeling these guys are just really shitty filmmakers, making shitty films set in their world which happens to be mostly gay. The gay part may look like a gimmick to you--I think it's usually just life to them. And to gay audiences.
It's interesting that you may be interpretting this as a gimmick--because you see nothing else of value, obviously they're trying to be unique by being gay. I have a feeling that in a way you are giving them too much credit, as well as too little. Most of the time, those poor saps really did think their twaddle was unique and interesting. Yeah, they really did make a film that dull and idiotic. Lots of them are dull and idiotic people--or at least lack the talent to express their ideas artfully. So in a way you're being too charitable, assuming they at least had the sense to add a gimmick to try to carry it. No, I doubt it.
(For starters, most out gay people don't think of gayness as being all that unique or inherently interesting. We're about as likely to even conceive of it as a gimmick as a left-hand person is to think that would make his film premise unique. We do tend to get excited to see a film about us, just like black people are relieved when a network sitcom actually includes black people. But then we're just sad that it's probably going to suck.)
I could be wrong, but I have a feeling you are reaching conclusions which make sense from your POV, but have nothing to do with the motivations driving these would-be artists. And it ocurrs to me that maybe you are not alone. Have a lot of straight people been thinking this a long time? Have you--or anyone else on this thread--talked about this with other straight people?
And I'm even more curious: have you discussed this idea with any gay people? I'm assuming that would look at you with puzzlement, but who knows. Enlighten me.
No, no hard feelings at all. My fault for stating my point in a fairly sloppy manner.
Anyways, you say that these filmmakers may actually be making a sincere attempt at making a film with real artistic merit and thinking that by having a gay theme that it does make it unique and interesting. I don't disagree with this. I'm sure, to them, that they really DID think that having a gay theme would make it unique, though, as you said, that's not always the case.
I see it as a gimmick because it's usually the ONLY "unique" attribute about a given movie. A movie with a gay theme will generally have little else special about it other then it's homosexual nature. Take out the homosexuality, and you have a generic film, most of the time.
With that said, I'm no expert on films with a theme such as this, I've not seen many, but from the ones I have seen I found myself thinking "okay, would anyone care about this movie, or be interested in it at all, if it didn't have this gay theme?" The answer, to me, at least, is usually "no".
This isn't seen in only gay films. You mentioned black sitcoms, which made me think of the recent crapfest "The Honeymooners" which had a gimmick of taking what was initially a "white" show and turning it into an all black cast. Some people thought this made the film unique "oh wow, look at that, they're black, how odd". Of course, this didn't change the quality of the film and annoyed more people then it intrigued. It took a very trivial physical/character change and centered the whole movie on it. Same basic idea that I'm talking about. Take a simple, generic, say, romance film, nothing particularly special about it, starring a man and a woman, and it gets no press, it's just seen as "more of the same". Now, change nothing but the sex of one of the characters, and the film gets much attention and is seen as unique for changing something that, in reality, has nothing to do with the film itself. All because it's about a gay couple now instead of a straight couple Hopefully you see where I'm coming from here.
Perhaps you're right though, I'm straight, maybe that's why I see it as a gimmick while gay people don't even give it a second thought. Regardless, homosexuality is the minority, most people see it as "strange" or "different" because it's not the norm, as such, I think some studios, not necessarily the film makers, do release movies with a gay theme to try and intrigue movie goers. Straight people will often be intrigued because it's a different (though trivial) change to the typical cinematic formula, while many gay people will often embrace it simply because it is about their lifestyle and what not.
Is this a gimmick? Sometimes, I think. Not always, it depends on how relevant it is to the story and the quality of the film itself. Also depends on the desires of the film maker and the studio.
To answer your final question - No, I've never discussed this idea with anyone, straight or gay. Until now, of course.
Originally posted by BackFire
you say that these filmmakers may actually be making a sincere attempt at making a film with real artistic merit and thinking that by having a gay theme that it does make it unique and interesting.
No, I was trying to say the opposite, actually. I was saying they were trying to make a film with real artitic merit and thought SOMETHING about their story was unique and interesting. The fact that it was gay was merely incidental.
Try this: You live in the U.S. (I'm guessing.) If you made a film, chances are it would be set in the U.S., filled with Americans. Just because it's the world you know. It would never occur to you that that in itself would be seen as your unique angle, or some gimmick for attention. And you created a story that you thought was cool and interesting, but to just about any viewer it was dull beyond belief, and all they could think was, "What was he thinking? Why would he think anyone would care about this?" But imagine if one of those viewers was from India, and was very cognizant of the fact that the U.S. is less than 5% of the world's population. So he came to the conclusion that you set it in America, filled with Americans as a way to get attention, because that would make it interesting. Obviously, he would say--it's the only thing unique about your story. You would probably be incredulous.
I think that's how these gay filmmakers would see your remarks. They would be pissed and distressed that you thought their film was so insipid that you had to look around for reasons they might have found it interesting. (Even though you would be right.) But they would be flummoxed to find that you thought the gayness was meant as the hook or the hype or whatever. It's just the world they knew, so they started there.
Believe me, I've taught creative writing to undergrads and sat through countless workshops with grad students who write the most innane crap about nothing and are quite sure their stories are rivetting. There is nothing there just because they are shitty writers, and think their innane little hack plot and generic characters are interesting. They imagine a fascinating situation, but lack the skills to bring it to life. Few of these people are gay, and stories are about straight people. If you happen to have a gayguy in the class, he is likely to write gay stories that are just as bad--but he is not intending the gay thing as some sort of hook, he is just writing what he knows. You might see his story and assume he must be trying to use the gay thing as the hook, but no, he just sucked and happened to be writing a sucky story that happened to have gay characters.
The Honeymooners is clearly an example of what you're talking about: taking an existing concept and just flipping one element. But I can't think of any gay films like that, unless maybe In And Out--the "what if he was gay!" idea, but that's not even a gay film, it's just mistaken-identity straight people.
You're right, obviously, that gays are in the minority, so there is some shock potential, but only if they were being marketed to shocked straight people. Most gay films are made for gay audiences--they're certainly not expecting those gay people to be shocked. I just don't think this is happening. It's the kind of shock almost certain to turn off your audience, rather than draw one. Any exec using that strategy would be looking for a job pretty soon.
Hmm, those are some interesting points, Dave. Giving me some stuff to think about, I like that.
However, I don't the the setting of America is really very good. Tons of films are made in the US, it would be nothing new or exciting. However, there are some movies that come from other, more remote and less common areas, and perhaps these would be a better comparison. Some of these movies, much like the gay films, seem to have nothing unique to offer other then an odd setting, as opposed to characters. Same deal, I suppose.
This probably isn't done intentionally by the creator, and you're probably very right - most probably are just writing what's familiar too them. However, I'd be hard-pressed to find a gay film that really does have anything else to offer. They more or less seem to rely on their gay themes, and nothing more. Again, I'm not saying this was done intentionally, but it's the consequence for making an otherwise generic film with one, glaringly apparent difference.
I also do think studios make these films, not ONLY for gay audiences, but for gossip and attention. I'm not saying they don't aim them for a gay audience, merely that I think they're, at the same time, attempting to gather as much hype as possible from the straight crowd at the same time. There's a lot of straight people who are into these "artsy" type films that will go see a movie just because it has a "unique" theme, and think that they're great and brave because of that, when in reality they're nothing more then a simplistic, generic film with simply a gay theme.
But even if I'm wrong, and even if the studios do soley aim these films at the gay community, I'd still consider them using it as a gimmick. They're relying on this ONE attribute to lure in a specific type of crowd that wouldn't otherwise be there were it not for said attribute.
Maybe it's just me, I don't know. Like I said, I've never really discussed this with anyone before so I don't know what others think of the issue. But, like the old saying goes, no press is bad press, I'd say the same is for shock value. No shock value is bad shock value, it will still gain attention, and as such, people will want to see it.
Also, it's nice to have a new member who is actually willing to have indepth discussions about films, too few around. Welcome to the forum.
Originally posted by davecullen
I think that's how these gay filmmakers would see your remarks. They would be pissed and distressed that you thought their film was so insipid that you had to look around for reasons they might have found it interesting. (Even though you would be right.) But they would be flummoxed to find that you thought the gayness was meant as the hook or the hype or whatever. It's just the world they knew, so they started there.
There are several gay filmmakers out there who make great movies. Much like 'West side story'. Personally I love that movie. I don't think of the fact that It was directed by someone who swung a different way then me. I just enjoy his workings and give credit where credit is due.
Originally posted by BackFire
Maybe it's just me, I don't know. Like I said, I've never really discussed this with anyone before so I don't know what others think of the issue. But, like the old saying goes, no press is bad press, I'd say the same is for shock value. No shock value is bad shock value, it will still gain attention, and as such, people will want to see it.
Thats's what I was thinking, Shock value. Why else would they cast stars such as Jake Gyllenhaal, and Heath ledger? Not becuase they neccescarily fit the role, It's that they are rising stars. And people get entertainment out of watching a kissing scene between two of the media's rising and loved Actors. Now just think, If it were 2 guys we've never heard of, would the audience really want to see this? No. It's not that im interested in seeing it in the first place.Bbut with 2 unkown actors, Chances slim down. Girls love gay guys am I right? Does seeing two guys kiss turn them on, like seeing 2 girls kiss for us males? Maybe they go to the theater to find out. Think about it. I'd probably go to the cinema to see 2 hot stars make out like Angelina Jolie and Kate beckinsale make out. Why wouldn't feamales do the same?
Originally posted by BackFire
Also, it's nice to have a new member who is actually willing to have indepth discussions about films, too few around. Welcome to the forum.
Indeed it is. Most people on the movie forums don't even come here for the movies. They just live in their little cubby hole at OTF, and never come out. Either that, or are banned within the 10 minutes they join, because they are comlete imbeciles.
As Backfire said, Welcome to the forums.